Google Buzz could cause legal problems in Hollywood

By Eriq Gardner

Google has been taking a lot of heat since Tuesday's launch of a new social-networking feature called Buzz that allows users to post status updates to contacts and make comments on other people's updates. Most controversially, Google Buzz allows people by default to see who their contacts e-mail and chat with most.

This could be a problem in Hollywood, especially among lawyers and agents.

Privacy Wars: Netflix, Facebook and the 'Brokeback Mountain Effect'

By Eriq Gardner

Will "Brokeback Mountain" shape rules concerning the responsibility of websites to guard user privacy?

The debate over privacy on the Internet got much louder yesterday when a group of privacy advocate organizations filed a complaint with the FTC over recent changes made by Facebook to user information seen by the public. Meanwhile, a class action lawsuit was filed yesterday against Netflix for breaking various privacy codes when the video rental service held a contest and released information about its users' preferences.

Let's take the Netflix case first — a possible path-breaking piece of litigation that has the potential to influence the Facebook debate.

The lawsuit was filed by a group of individuals lead by a Jane Doe who identifies herself only as a lesbian. In the complaint, the plaintiffs take issue with a contest that Netflix ran in October 2006 where the company offered $1 million to anybody who could come up with an algorithm to improve upon its movie recommendation engine by 10 percent. Netflix opened the contest to the public and gave participants a lot of data, including 100 million subscriber movie ratings.

A few weeks after the contest began, researchers at the University of Texas published a paper entitled, "How to Break Anonymity of the Netflix Prize Dataset," describing a method of unmasking that compared Netflix ratings with those made on Internet Movie Database. The researchers wrote they were able to uncover political preferences and other sensitive information of its users. 

The plaintiffs call this the "Brokeback Mountain Factor," referring to an idea that anybody who has the movie in their queue is more likely to be homosexual. (Last year, we wrote a cover article for Psychology Today describing how scientists were using taste preferences to glean revealing information about individuals.) 

The lawsuit argues that Netflix broke its own privacy policy, seeks $2,500 in damages for each of its more than 2 million users, and asks for an enjoinment from launching a second contest that will give out user data including ZIP codes, age, and gender with movie ratings.

The same day this lawsuit was filed, the FTC got a complaint over recent changes made by Facebook that has opened up to the public user information including names, friends and fan pages. The filing includes quotes by aggrieved users but is somewhat short on real examples of the damage potentially caused to Facebook's users.

We're guessing that some will soon connect the dots here and push the FTC to recognize threats of data mining in the alleged privacy breach.

Is Arnold's new anti-paparazzi law unconstitutional?

By Eriq Gardner

Since giving up an acting career for life in California's governor's mansion, Arnold Schwarzenegger has made it one of his political missions to make life tough for intrusive paparazzi.

Schwarzenegger has enacted laws that expand privacy protections and punish photographers for assaults and altercations. He's endorsed the idea of a "celebrity buffer zone" and now he's signed a bill that's the most assertive yet in cracking down on paparazzi intrusion.

Maybe the Governator has gone too far this time.

Specifically, the new law will impose liability on those who knowingly publish or broadcast material that's unlawfully obtained and violates state statutes for constructive invasion of privacy. Sounds fair, right? The law is being read by many as an "anti-paparazzi law" but we're pretty sure a court will soon give this statute a thorough First Amendment shakedown to see if it interferes with less offensive news-gathering.

In recent decades, the U.S. Supreme Court has been extremely leery of laws that encroach upon First Amendment protections without a compelling government interest. The high court has made it tougher for plaintiffs to sue for libel and defamation, but what about invasion of privacy? In cases like Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, the Court seemed to be skeptical that a State could ever "define and protect an area of privacy free from unwanted publicity in the press" without fully resolving the question.

Upon consideration in the California legislature, the anti-paparazzi law was attacked by the ACLU, the California Newspaper Publishers Association and the Radio Television Digital News Association, who warned potential defendants would have a significant burden at trial to prove no actual knowledge of an unlawfully obtained image. The RTDNA added that litigation costs would cause risk-adverse news organizations into self-censorship.

California could become to privacy what the U.K. is to defamation, but before that happens, there should be a significant courtroom challenge on this new law.

Fox News getting sued left and right

By Eriq Gardner

Fox News seems to be getting some heat lately, and not just from the liberal blogosphere.

The first legal case involves its airing of a video of convicted scam-artist Bernie Madoff and his wife on a yacht. On January 8, Fox News paid $10,000 to license the exclusive rights to show the clip for 45 days. After the term expired, Kenneth Stadt, the owner of the video, demanded that the cabler stop showing the video. Fox News paid $50,000 for another 45 days. But now that term has expired, and in a new lawsuit filed in New York District Court, Stadt is demanding at least $500,000 in damages for Fox News' alleged continued use of his copyrighted material.

Meanwhile, the News Corp-owned network is also facing a lawsuit over those ACORN videos it's been obsessed about lately. The videos show hidden footage taken of alleged fraud on the part of employees of the community organization group. ACORN says the videos were doctored and edited and violated laws in Maryland and the District of Columbia on undercover filming. Arthur Schwartz, a lawyer for ACORN, says he plans to file a lawsuit tomorrow against Fox News.

LAPD suspends cops in Rihanna photo leak probe

By Eriq Gardner

Is TMZ's streak of breaking celebrity dirt — and online traffic records — about to come to a halt?

Late last week, two Los Angeles Police Department officers were placed on leave as part of a probe into the unauthorized leak of a photo of battered pop singer Rihanna.

Lawyers for the suspended officers claim they have nothing to do with the photo's leak, but Gawker makes a fair point: "It's going to be harder to get the cooperation of law enforcement sources if they think it is at all likely a witchhunt will put their steady government job and comfy, government-funded retirement at risk, leaving them in the cold during a recession."

We wonder what sort of civil claims might celebrities pursue to further knock TMZ on its heels. An invasion of privacy class action against the LAPD and other government agencies? Public figures have long pursued invasion of privacy claims against paparazzi, but they have gone soft on outlets fostering the spread of leaked information.

Torrent websites proving resilient against legal claims

By Eriq Gardner

The entertainment industry is finding it tough to stamp out torrent websites. Today brings news on two fronts.

The Motion Picture Association of America has yet to convince a federal court that BitTorrent index site Isohunt is guilty of contributory copyright infringement. Judge Stephen Wilson wants the MPAA to prove that U.S. residents are pirating content using Isohunt. The defendant had previously shut down trackers to U.S. users and the entertainment industry must now figure out a way to trace specific examples of infringement on Isohunt's servers occuring in the U.S.

Meanwhile, there's been a lot of activity this week on the PirateBay front. Today, the company's acquisition by Global Gaming Factory X was approved by shareholders, despite continued attempts by Hollywood movie studios to shut down the site once and for all. Pirate Bay was down earlier this week after a Swedish district court ordered access blocked, but showing the site's resiliency, it's back up. Nobody knows whether PirateBay has really been sold or whether the acquirer has the funds or the pull to move it into a legit digital hub for entertainment content.

Vanessa Hudgens, Ashley Greene threaten legal action over nude photos

By Eriq Gardner

Two trends that will probably never ever go away — celebrities showing some skin and lawyers threatening action if naked photos are published.

Last week, there was "Milk" screenwriter Dustin Lance Black's lawsuit against a photo agency that had allegedly attained nude photographs illicitly and distributed them. This week, lawyers for "Twilight" actress Ashley Greene and "High School Musical" starlet Vanessa Hudgens have put out word that websites posting leaked nude photos of the two actresses could be taken to court.

The published photos could be in violation of privacy rights, intellectual property, and possibly some child pornography laws. In the past, some publishers have gotten away with posting nude photos on free speech grounds if the subject in question was extraordinarily newsworthy. Probably two young, up-and-coming actresses who haven't been involved in any major scandals won't qualify. 

But the photos are out there — and it's going to be tough to make them go away. The consideration on whether to sue may not be a court victory per se, but a cost/benefit analysis of the hassle involved.

'Sexting' victim sues Hearst-Argyle TV station

By Eriq Gardner

Local television news isn't exactly known for hard-hitting journalism, so it's no surprise to read that a Cincinnati station featured reports about the act of "sexting," sending sexually explicit come-ons via a cell phone.

But WLWT-TV may have gotten into trouble by featuring an image of a cellphone with the name of a local woman.

According to a new lawsuit against Hearst-Argyle Television, operator of  WLWT-TV, an employee wrote cell phone text messages like, "Baby, I know what you need...," addressed to plaintiff Joanna Argus. The cellphone was used as a prop during the "sexting" feature.

Argus says she's been the victim of repeated stories on the "texting" phenomenon by the station, and after the first time her name came up, she was alerted by a shocked family member. Argus called up a friend at the station, who confessed to her that he had written her name. The WLWT-TV employee allegedly apologized and assured her the footage wouldn't be used again.

But news reports on "sexting" allegedly continued with Argus' name. She says she's been humiliated by the repeated broadcasts and claims the station violated her privacy and defamed her.

Is TechCrunch liable for publishing Twitter documents?

By Eriq Gardner

As technology develops and plays a bigger part in all our lives, we're beginning to sense a burgeoning relationship between hackers of the world and some in the media who are hungry to post scintillating, private information.

Sometimes a reporter is the beneficiary of documents passed along by some hacker, as was the case last year when Gawker published e-mails from vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin. And sometimes a reporter works actively with hackers to attain sensitive information. Just last week, Rupert Murdoch's News Group Newspapers paid about $1.6 million to settle court cases involving allegations that its reporters worked with private investigators to hack into numerous public figures' cellphones. 

What are the ethical boundaries in the media's relationship with a hacker? What's the legal liability for posting information obtained after an individual's violation of the law?

We might be seeing a case enfolding that will explore both questions.

Last week, TechCrunch editors got their hands on some of Twitter's confidential corporate and personal documents, including financial forecasts for the company and what TechCrunch described as an "awesome" pitch for a reality television show called "Final Tweet." 

The documents were given to the highly-trafficked blog by a hacker who appears to have obtained them through surreptitious means. TechCrunch described the dilemma over whether they should post the documents. After speaking with some Twitter lawyers, they decided to publish some of the documents with "news value."

Twitter co-founder Biz Stone says the company is talking to legal counsel and exploring its options. We assume that litigation is on the table. 

TechCrunch's action is kicking off some debate over the ethics of a news organization's relationship with hackers (1, 2, 3) but just as pertinent is the blog's liability. Does the First Amendment protect the publication of stolen Twitter documents? Twitter just hired a new general counsel and if he wants to make a mark, here's a place to start.

Are cellphones such a big piracy threat?

By Eriq Gardner

It's becoming common practice for studios to demand that people turn over their cellphones before attending advance screenings. Most people do so without making trouble.

But in an interesting column up on The Guardian's website, professional rabble-rouser Cory Doctorow wants to know what might happen if the data on the cellphone is breached.

It's a pretty sly point.

"When pressed, spokespeople from the Federation Against Copyright Theft and the Film Distributors' Association admitted they had never heard of a pirated movie 'in the wild' that originated with a mobile phone, nor, to the best of their knowledge, had anyone ever been ejected from a cinema for attempting this."

Doctorow then brings up one indisputable fact — "mobile phones are rapidly expanding their capabilities" — and thus, the trustees of the phone become responsible for protecting account information, voicemails, phone numbers of everyone in the person's network, confidential diaries, family photos, personal voice memos, access to a web browser search history...

This is beginning to sound like the missing episode of Alias. Can you imagine Sydney Bristow luring a high-up at SD-6 into a special screening of the new Ben Affleck movie just to get her hands on this person's cellphone?

Doctorow suggests the studios purchase insurance to cover losses due to data breaches. Or maybe don't ask him to give up his iPhone.